J J MURALIDHARA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1971-6-19
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on June 29,1971

J.J.MURALIDHARA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is an application for the issue of an appropriate writ declaring that the petitioner is a Lecturer in Mathematics in the Department of Technical Education on regular basis or in the alternative to direct the respondent to take action to relax the rules relating to age and qualification specified in the special rules relating to the Technical Education Service.
(2.) The petitioner obtained his M.A. degree in Second Glass in Mathematics from the Allahabad University. He was appointed as Lecturer of Mathematics in the Government Polytechnic, Proddatur on 17th September, 1959, by an order of the Director of Technical Education. He was then transferred as Lecturer in Mathematics to the Government Mining Institute, Kothagudem from gth December, 1960. His original appointment on 17th September, 1959, was said to be temporary under general Rule 10(a)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Service Rules. At the time of the appointment he was duly qualified for the post and according to the rules Second Class Post-graduate students could be appointed. His appointment was also made by the appropriate authority. Thereafter his scales of pay were revised and he was given the gazetted post in 1965. Ever since he has been working as a Lecturer and it is common ground that there was nothing to be said against the discharge of his duties as a Lecturer. Subsequently new Rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution which were put into force from 15th January, 1964, according to which the requisite qualification was a First Class degree in M.A. It is said that a number of other lecturers who secured only second class and third class distinctions in the M.A. degree were retained in the service as lecturers even after the introduction of the new rules. In view of the long experience and to relieve their hardship the Government exercised their power under rule 47 and relaxed the rules as regards the qualifications and age and regularised the services of other lecturers. The names of some of such candidates have been mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. But no such relaxation was given in the case of the petitioner. His representations for the said relief were rejected. In November, 1969, the Government advertised for direct recruitment of Mathematics lecturers in the Mining Department requiring a First Class Degree as a qualification. It is also stated that in pursuance of the advertisement notified by the Public Service Commission several applications were received and the petitioner also submitted his application. But the Government refused to relax the rules in favour of the petitioner The result is certain viz., that the petitioner's application will stand rejected. Aggrieved by this action of the Government the petitioner filed this writ petition.
(3.) Two contentions have been raised by Sri Babulu Reddi on behalf of the petitioner. The first is that his original appointment in 1959, though purporting to be one under rule 10(a)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Rules, was really a regular appointment as there was no case pf emergency at that time. It is not a case of the post itself being created for a temporary period. It was a regular vacancy in which he was appointed by the competent authority at a time when the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications. So far as the subsequent treatment is concerned, the petitioner's case was never forwarded to the Service Commission for obtaining permission to extend his service as in the case of temporary servants. On the other hand, he was given all the increments and was given the gazetted post also. After nearly 10 years he is now asked to face the new Rules for regularisation under which different qualifications are imposed. He, therefore, submits that his original appointment should be treated as a regular one and that he is entitled to be regularised under the old Rules. Secondly it is urged that when other persons in the Department similarly situated as he, have been given the benefit of relaxation of the Rules, there was no reason why he should not be given similar bsnefits.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.